Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islands/Archive 1

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Islands to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Islands/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
 * List of cleanup articles for your project

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
 * Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

Ikip 02:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

NB...
WikiProject Scottish Islands--MacRusgail (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Artificial Island of Brighton
Please see this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_Island_of_Brighton,_ON_Canada I think it would be appropriate for the island project. I also note it may also be one of the largest artificial islands in the world. I see in the main artificial island article a claim is made for Flevopolder in the Netherlands with a total land surface of 970 km², as the largest artificial island in the world. I think this is likely incorrect, as the Artificial Island land mass formed by the Murray Canal is likely a bit larger. I will verify. Ddinglebb (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddinglebb (talk • contribs) 20:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Greenland (island)


The article Greenland (island) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Duplicate article of Greenland, no sources to establish the notability, created by a suspected sockpuppet of Tobias Conradi who has been banned for abusing multiple accounts

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JJ98 (Talk) 05:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Quemoy
Category:Quemoy has been nominated to be renamed to Category:Kinmen see Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 15 .. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Cape Horn for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk (talk)  17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Stub-type
Shouldn't there be a island-stub and a Category:Island stubs for islands, and this project? 65.94.45.185 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

List of inhabited islands of Croatia
There is a new weekly section on the main page called "Today's featured list" and I have nominated List of inhabited islands of Croatia to have a spot here. There has been some opposition to the nomination and it looks like the list could become a removal candidate very soon unless the quality of the list is improved. If you are interested in maintaining the list's featured status and seeing a summary of it up on the main page, your help in improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Eyes, please...
...on Talk:Island Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion regarding Greek island
Readers here may be interested in contributing to the discussion taking place at Talk:Kefalonia. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Senkaku Islands
There is currently an RfC on Talk:Senkaku Islands, a page that is marked as being of interest to this WikiProject. We would like to invite comments from other users at Talk:Senkaku Islands. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"island" naming discussion at WP:Article titles
FYI, there is an "island" naming discussion at WT:Article titles. Unscintillating (talk) 23:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Islands in fiction
Hi, I set up Category:Islands in fiction and hopes it meets with approval from this WikiProject. I have included Oceania and Caribbean as sub-categories, along with Bermuda, Channel Islands, Corsica, Falkland Islands, Jurassic Park, Malta, Mauritius and Singapore, but not larger islands such as Cyprus, Iceland or Sri Lanka, because I was not sure that being on an island would be a notable part of the fictional setting in such countries. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Category confusion (partly mea culpa)
I'd like to both apologise for any problems I may have caused with a new category I created earlier today, and also seek some expert help on what seems a slightly confused group of categories in WP. Earlier today Ic reated, and was busy populating it when I found that two underpopulated categories — and  — already exist, which to a certain extent overlap with my new creation. For the time being I've made both of the earlier categories subcategories of the new one, but all three could probably do with some expert knowledge in sorting out which article goes into which. Thanks, and again apologies! Grutness...wha?  01:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Shallow Bay Disambiguation
This irrelevant to the topic but 'Shallow Bay' also refers to the latest album by breaking benjamin. There is no page on the album yet but i suggest you take measures to avoid confusion Malithyapa (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done - there were two other "Shallow Bays" worth disambiguating, too. Grutness...wha?  01:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Gough Island
This article is on my watchlist, but I am not an expert. Please could editors note concerns at Talk:Gough Island and determine whether my concerns are valid? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal on Islands
Is anyone interested in starting a Portal:Islands? WhisperToMe (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

New portal: Portal:Islands
I created a new portal: Portal:Islands. It still needs to be filled in in some places. Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

CfR for "on Vancouver Island" vs "in Vancouver Island"
please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_30.Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer review
Your input is requested at a peer review here. Neelix (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am new to editing the Wikipedia. I have chosen the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islands to begin my experience. I am not sure what this "Peer review" is about, but I am ready to participate if someone will point me in the right direction. ITTechWriterA (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Alerts
When activated WikiProject Islands/Article alerts can be transcluded on the main page or watchlisted separately. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, is the island deserted?? Talk:Ushant In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move of articles on disputed islands
There is a proposal to move Senkaku Islands → Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands or Pinnacle Islands. Further views would be welcome at the disscussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Senkaku_Islands#Requested_move STSC (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at ~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man ) 05:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Council/Proposals/Channel Islands
Hi, I created this proposal for a Channel Islands WikiProject if anyone wants to take a look. Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 19:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rottumeroog is selected as article for improvement
The article Rottumeroog, which is also within the scope of this project, was selected by members of WikiProject Netherlands as the article for improvement in May 2014. Our ambitious goal is to improve the article to good article quality. You are invited to contribute to the article. – Editør (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor
I'm not convinced Glastonbury Tor is within the scope of WP Islands. from the article: "It has been described as an island but actually sits at the western end of a peninsula washed on three sides by the River Brue."

There are three other Wikiprojects watching this article. It's not referred to as an island in the lead and is not tagged in any island-related categories. Can we remove our wikiproject from its talk page? PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated Caroline Island for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unassessed Articles
I've gone through and cleared the backlog of unassessed articles. As of today, the only articles in that category left are ones I've personally written, which I've not assessed to avoide COI. If anyone else can take a look at the remaining unassessed articles and rate them, that'd be great. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Low islands, coral islands, and atolls
Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology. Evensteven (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is RoC different to Kosovo?
I've opened a discussion at Talk: Taiwan about how to describe the Republic of China consistent with how Wikipedia describes other partially recognised states like Kosovo. Participation welcomed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Islands for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (drawl)  @ 21:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Islands?
Does anyone know what the link to "Wikimedia Islands" (which goes to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_India ) should be referring to? -- Chuq (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a typo on my part. When I expanded the project page several months back I copied the style of WikiProject India, creating new pages for Islands as needed. Looks like I missed one. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Prince of Wales Island - dab or pt?
I haven't google-resulted this yet, or incoming links etc, just fielding the page for consideration. My immediate instinct, especially given where I'm from and my interests in regional history and geography and such, that Prince of Wales Island (Alaska) is the obvious PRIMARYTOPIC and would be the preponderant result of googles, wiki-searches and incoming links. How much Penang's location has Prince of Wales Island (Malaysia) as most common, most citable name for it, and it's also not a current name anyway as far as dab rankings go. The Alaskan ones will have lots of types of articles mentioning it, anthropology, political geography, indigenous culture/history/government, and a fairly large number of communities, and mineral reports and all that stuff. So that's where my money is; I'm thinking this page got created long ago; not sure if the title was originally only the Alaskan item, it may have been.Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:Island articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. Iceblock (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Recruitment Letter
Hello Wikipedians,

We’d like to invite you to participate in a study that aims to explore how WikiProject members coordinate activities of distributed group members to complete project goals. We are specifically seeking to talk to people who have been active in at least one WikiProject in their time in Wikipedia. Compensation will be provided to each participant in the form of a $10 Amazon gift card.

The purpose of this study is to better understanding the coordination practices of Wikipedians active within WikiProjects, and to explore the potential for tool-mediated coordination to improve those practices. Interviews will be semi-structured, and should last between 45-60 minutes. If you decide to participate, we will schedule an appointment for the online chat session. During the appointment you will be asked some basic questions about your experience interacting in WikiProjects, how that process has worked for you in the past and what ideas you might have to improve the future.

You must be over 18 years old, speak English, and you must currently be or have been at one time an active member of a WikiProject. The interview can be conducted over an audio chatting channel such as Skype or Google Hangouts, or via an instant messaging client. If you have questions about the research or are interested in participating, please contact Michael Gilbert at (206) 354-3741 or by email at mdg@uw.edu.

We cannot guarantee the confidentiality of information sent by email.

Weariness (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The link to the relevant research page is m:Research:Means_and_methods_of_coordination_in_WikiProjects Md gilbert (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

infoboxes for islands that are settlements
Re Talk:McMillan Island and many other cases I know of, infobox islands is limiting and has fields that are limiting as currently formulated; I commented on the talkpage of the infobox template but should raise a general issue here...and propose using infobox settlement on major settlements that are also islands.

The Indian reserve on McMillan Island or rather that is McMillan Island's legal status, includes the village of the Kwantlen First Nation, one of whose reserves it is. In other cases like Bowen Island which is a municipality infobox settlement should be used; others that are populated and when the names are synonymous between the actual island and that of (a) settlement on it (sometimes there's more than one settlement) then infobox settlement, IMO, should be used instead of infobox islands.

Sometimes, though, there will be two separate articles, e.g. when a postal address name/locality/settlement is not the only one on the island and is substantial enough to warrant its own article. I won't list all the island-communities I have in mind...but they are many.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * At some possible risk to my sanity, I can direct you to Template talk:Infobox Scottish island. We have used this infobox for many years, principally becasue of the deficiences of infobox islands and it has hundreds of transclusions. The tenor of the discussion is that I am keen to ensure that the balance that needs to be struck between consistency and the unique nature of different island chains does not stray too far towards the latter. The general topic may have some resonance with your discussion about McMillan Island but the two "wrapper enthusiasts" who have started this discussion are clearly knowledgeable about and interested in the technical issues of infoboxes and may be willing to help. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Natural history of the Caribbean by islands
Category:Natural history of the Caribbean by islands has been listed for Categories for Discussion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Isle of Mull listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Isle of Mull to be moved to Mull. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
 * 1) supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
 * 2) opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

"Ireland"
The naming of the article at Ireland and the usage and topic of the pagename "Ireland" are up for discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment
When I started working on islands articles a year and a half ago, there were more than 2,000 unassessed articles. Today there are 0. We cleared the backlog. Great job, everybody! PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

List of islands in the Pacific Ocean
Hi all, List of islands in the Pacific Ocean had a very short incomplete list of islands, while Pacific Islands had a much longer list (but still incomplete). The latter article also links to other more specific list articles. I copied the list from Pacific Islands to List of islands in the Pacific Ocean and linked from the former to the latter as main article, as it seems more appropriate to me to have such a long list as a separate article, especially since that article already existed. I used the proper copied templates on the respective talk pages. Gap9551 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, List of islands in the Arctic Ocean, List of islands in the Atlantic Ocean, and List of islands in the Indian Ocean exist and are quite developed, so it makes sense to have a Pacific version too with the main list. Gap9551 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Freshwater islands
Is Grand Island, NY the world's largest freshwater island? Does WP have a list of such islands?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Great Britain
A series of categories relating to Great Britain have been nominated for re-naming here which may interest this project. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Name change discussion at Talk:Liancourt Rocks
Please come participate in the name change discussion regarding the future naming of the Liancourt Rocks article. Thank you for participating! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

List of countries by number of islands
Is there a list of countries that shows the number of islands per country? Ping me when you reply. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 03:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Islands

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.&mdash; Rod talk 16:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on use of multiple levels of maps in
This RfC at Talk:Gråen may be of general interest and have implications for other articles. The question is whether the feature to display multiple levels of maps (in this case for Scania, Sweden and Europe) should be used in the template to convey the location of an island. Thanks. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

GAN: Hachijō-jima
There's a Good article discussion happening at Talk:Hachijō-jima/GA1, and you're invited to participate. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone else can come look at this, that would be great. I've done an initial review, so now we need someone to implement the changes. I'd do them, but then my review wouldn't be valid for making it a Good Article. Thanks for any help! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If one or two people can come look over this and make the suggested changes, that would be great. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes. I reviewed it, so I can't be the one making the changes. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 18:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox alt text for images
I tried to add the line  | static_image_alt =  to the infobox and got an error message. It wouldn't take  | image_alt = , either. Was I doing something wrong, or is WP:MOSALT alt text not possible in this infobox? Cheers,  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's OK, I've found the template and the answer :  | image alt       = .  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Pentecost Island
Need some disambiguation for Pentecost Island since there is one off the coast of Queensland, Australia, in addition to the one in Vanuatu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulehide (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move
There is a requested move at Talk:Harris, Outer Hebrides that is presently at "no consensus" and may need your help to assess future consensus. Please come and add your rationale. Thanks in advance!  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 19:18, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Macaronesia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Macaronesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Macaronesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Singapore
Singapore, an article of interest to this project, has been nominated for Good Article. It seems possible for it to become a Good Article, though it needs tidying up. If anyone is interested in helping out, see the review: Talk:Singapore/GA3. SilkTork (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

RFC "on" v "in" categories
We sometimes use "on" for islands and other landforms for categories such as Category:Villages on Jura, Scotland and Category:Villages on the Isle of Mull and sometimes use "in" such as Category:Villages in Islay and Category:Villages in the Isle of Arran.

There seems to be a general (but still fairly inconsistent) rule currently that where the island is huge (like Great Britain, Category:Rail transport in Great Britain) or are also an administrative division (like Sri Lanka, Category:Populated places in Sri Lanka) they use "in" but when they aren't huge or aren't also administrative divisions they use "on".

Some types of sizes for example are those that are (1) huge like Greenland, Tasmania and Great Britain, those that are (2) large like Isle of Skye, Lolland, Jura and Isle of Mull, those that are (3) medium sized like Isle of Gigha, Isle of Ewe and Scarba, those that are (4) small like Texa, Bessieres Island, Brosdale Island and Soyea Island and those that are (5) tiny and would often be referred to as rocks/skerries such as Seghy, Skerryvore, Sgeir Thraighte, Rockall and Sgeir na Trian. These are a bit arbitrary but there some examples of different sizes.

As far as things go I think 1 would usually be "on" in normal writing, 2 would normally be "on" except for very small things like insects (if we categorized here like on Commons) and by locals, 3 would rarely be "on" even for those failure with the islands, 4 would not be "in" except for those living on them and very small things and 5 even less so for both.

I started a CFD at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 31 proposing to change them all to "on" which was closed as no consensus. That discussion includes some facts and arguments about how commonly both are used. There were also discussions at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 11, Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 5 and Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 10.

Recently I created Category:Villages on Mainland, Shetland and it was pointed out to me that it should be "in" like the other similar categories for the Shetland Islands.

Arguments in favour of using "on" when deemed appropriate are:


 * More natural language
 * ENGVAR
 * Consistent with the text in the articles such as Lochranza says its "on the Isle of Arran"

Arguments in favour of always using "in" are:


 * Consistency with X in administrative divisions and X in settlements that always use "in"
 * Means we don't have to debate which we use in a specific case and thus increases stability and predictability.

Indeed for those with administrative division such as Sri Lanka, Tasmania, Isle of Man and Isle of Wight the administrative division isn't much larger than the island meaning it only contains a few relatively small islands and there is only 1 article and category for both, see User:Seav/Islands and administrative units. However in some cases there is a significant difference meaning the administrative division covers a significantly different area, usually larger like Anglesey where the principal area also includes Holy Island (which is relatively large) and others. Tresco is another example see Commons:Category:Tresco (civil parish). The other side of course is Ireland which is also in Northern Ireland in addition to the ROI along with the difference of other islands but there are separate articles and categories.

What should be done with these categories?

Should we always use "in", should we use "in" only when the island is also an administrative division or only certain sized islands as given in numbers above. What about other landforms such as peninsulas? If this is approved one way or another we would probably need a bot (or someone with AWB) to tag/move these and this would override previous consensus on individual categories (but that could be problematic).

Should it matter depending on the country/region? Or should it largely be case by case.

Please indicate you're recommendation by using "In" or "On" for you're !vote such as "On for 2 and above", "On for all islands" and "On for all islands except those that are also administrative divisions" or similar.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Use "IN" for every (currently or formerly) inhabited area, and "ON" for always uninhabited areas. Consistency is a key goal of category names, so a rules-based approach is strongly preferred, to avoid endless debates about trivial nuances.   Such rules work best when kept simple, a simple division between ever-inhabited/never-inhabited is easily applied.
 * There may be a case for making an exception for some of the huge but uninhabited islands in polar regions, but on balance I'd prefer not to do that. (The KISS principle). -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Use "in" for anywhere inhabited, "on" for uninhabited. As an islander myself, the impression I get (and I'm pretty sure this is shared with other islanders like me) is that use of the word "on" makes it feel like I'm holding onto the rock below me for dear life, as the sea might sweep me "off" at any moment! "On" implies an inherent smallness and unimportance. Of course, to me this island is my life, and for the brief amounts of time I am away I go "out", and therefore come back "in" - just like you go out and come in the front door of your house. Those terms feel much more in keeping with what daily island life involves, and it's the most respectful term for those who live in the places we are describing. Fair enough if you want to use "on" for a sea stack that no one could possibly live upon (I'll leave it up to someone else to decide on the term for Rockall!) but if there's a population of at least 1, it should be "in". Griceylipper (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At nearly 5,000 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC will also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed the RFC tag.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If we're going to use "in" for all inhabited (or previously inhabited) then I don't think there will be many islands that we will have categories that will need to be subdivided like that anyway (we only have 1 Scottish island category for an uninhabited island, Categort:Rochall and its not sub divided) since there usually only needed for things like buildings but as noted at Commons this would have more effect.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Revised RFC
We sometimes use "on" for islands and other landforms for categories such as Category:Villages on Jura, Scotland and Category:Villages on the Isle of Mull and sometimes use "in" such as Category:Villages in Islay and Category:Villages in the Isle of Arran.

Given the problems with the last one I'll start a brief one based on above with the "inhabited or previously inhabited".


 * Always use "on".
 * Use "in" for one of those size types (and larger, please specify the size such as "very small" per above) but otherwise use "on".
 * Use "in" for inhabited or previously inhabited.
 * Always use "in".

Arguments in favour of distinguishing from inhabited include being more natural (especially to the people there). Arguments against include determening if an island is/was inhabited.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Critical procedural point: Please be advised that any consensus that you arrive at here will not be binding on any particular articles. See WP:Advice pages to understand why: in short, WikiProjects are not allowed to carve out default content rules for articles their members perceive to be within their purview: this is a longstanding point of community consensus that has been further codified in multiple ArbCom cases. If you want the result of this discussion to have influence over a broad swath of articles, you will need to get a change made to a relevant WP:POLICY or WP:STYLE page, through the normal consensus process on the talk page associated with said guideline.  Alternatively, you can host a discussion in a centralized community space.  But if you have the discussion here, then the result will have not have the standing of established (and properly vetted) community consensus and you will still have to have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion on each article, whenever there is disagreement. Snow let's rap 04:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't using a RFC the correct way to start a binding discussion keeping in mind I notified Wikipedia talk:Category names anyway.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The RfC itself is indeed the best possible way to resolve the issue with a community consensus, but ideally you still want to host the discussion in the appropriate talk space. The concern will be that even with an RfC notice bringing in additional uninvolved community voices, the RfC taking place here gives the WikiProject and its members an outsized influence over the eventual outcome, and that the result will not be a "final" one in any event;  because each group of active editors on each article is entitled to create their own local consensus on a given editorial issue (unless there is a standing community consensus on the point that is codified in a policy, guideline, or style page) and because the result of a discussion at a WikiProject is considered merely advisory, it is usually simply easier to take the issue to the talk page of the appropriate guideline (or if there is no immediately obvious guideline the issue fits into, simply to create one through the WP:PROPOSAL process).


 * However, there have been occasions where a discussion has already been proceeding in the wrong space for a while, or an issue is so niche that there is no obvious policy guideline or style page to broach the issue upon, and the change seems too small to warrant a new page of its own. In these instances, some editors have used the workaround of keeping the existing RfC going at the WikiProject, but posting a notice at the central-most locations for policy discussion (usually WP:VPP for small issues). The idea is that whatever outsized influence hosting the issue at the WikiProject has is considerably minimized by the fact that a much larger amount of editors will see the discussion than normally would be summoned by an RfC tag alone. So you can consider doing that here.  That approach works fine if the editors you are debating with are willing to accept the outcome of the consensus.  However, if the acrimony and disagreement has hit a level where one side is likely to stonewall or fight the outcome, then you should definitely take the issue to the appropriate policy/MoS talk page, because until you have affected a change to one of those pages through the normal community processes, you technically only have an WP:Advice pages outcome, which your rhetorical opponents are not required to follow on all articles, giving them the option of simply ignoring your hard-won consensus here.


 * So which of the options you proceed with from this point (now that the RfC has been started here in this forum) should be dictated by how divisive the issue is and how likely you think everyone is to be satisfied enough by the consensus to follow it: if you think there are going to be people grousing over the result if one approach carries the consensus, it is simply a better long-term solution to change the appropriate guideline language, even if it means creating a new guideline or section of the MoS. If you think most editors working this area will be satisfied by any consensus discussion even if they disagree with the outcome (such that they will not just ignore it) you might just post a notice at VPP and try to finish resolving the issue here and now. I know this is all a little convoluted (we've needed better information pages to explain this process for a long time, and the absence of such guidelines leads to a great many RfCs being started in the wrong place), but I hope my explanation has helped clarify more than it has just confused the issue further. S<b style="color: #66c0fd">n</b><b style="color: #99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color: #b2dffe;">w</b> <b style="color: #d4143a">let's rap</b> 04:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've notified VPP.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is silly, sorely confused, and pointless. Oppose a blanket rule, as basically a form of WP:OR (dictating a style that often will not match actual English-usage patterns). If we had a blanket rule, it would have to be complicated, which would probably make for a bad rule (WP:CREEP). Use whatever is actually idiomatic in most mainstream English for the case in question. That's almost always going to resolve to "on" for small islands, and "in" for larger countries that happen to be (or be on/within) islands.  And no, we do not care what residents of the island use; WP is not written in 1000 regional micro-dialects!  It's very strange to me that this RfC (in multiple versions that keep missing the point) is trying to decide between always using either "in" or "on", without any regard for context. How can anyone focused on islands not already intuitively know that English usually uses "in" for larger places (and for groups of islands) and "on" for smaller ones?  And why make up a fake context of inhabited versus uninhabited that bears no relationship to actual English-language usage patterns? I think the RfC [re-]opener is just trying to catch every idea mentioned so far as an enumerated RfC option, but that's false equivalence and is undue; we need not consider ideas that are self-evidently bogus. PS: When the subject, in the particular context of the sentence, is a jurisdiction as such (which also happens to be coextensive with an island), the usage is typically "in", regardless of size.  But the same place, when being written about as a human-geography place, not a legal entity, might be "on" or "in" depending on size.  There was some additional discussion of this just now at WT:MOS, but that thread has been soft-redirected here, per WP:MULTI. PPS: See also Wikipedia:In versus of; it covers a few others pairs, and should probably also address in versus on.  Update: I've added such a section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC); updated: 16:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I thought using "on" would be relatively uncontroversial and normal but the CFD and the comments made by Griceylipper suggest otherwise. And yes to be clear I was only referring to individual islands, we would always use "in" for groups of islands.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 10:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think SMcCandlish is right - you can't dictate such sweeping rules - you need to assess each case individually. Language and usage don't follow such strict patterns. Whilst generally we might use "on" for small islands and "in" for larger islands or groups, there are always going to be exceptions. To me, it feels right to say "in Islay" but "on Mull", even though these are islands of comparable size and population. And I think you might say "on St Kilda" even though it's a group and not a single island. There's also the fact that people who live and work on an island are more likely to use "in", whilst those viewing it externally as tourists or visitors are more likely to use "on". I don't think you can enforce an overall unnatural consistency where none exists in the real world. I also think it's fair to assume that whoever set up these categories in the first place will have used "in" or "on" according to what felt idiomatic to them, so best to leave things as they are unless there is overwhelming evidence of contrary usage in a specific case. --92.41.129.45 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The comments above are correct: this RfC is doomed because it assumes English can be squeezed into a fixed rule with no exceptions. Not going to work! Johnuniq (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * None of the above. I don't think there is a specific rule for this one. For instance, in NYC we almost always say "in Manhattan"; sometimes "on Staten Island" and sometimes "in Staten Island"; always "on Roosevelt Island" - even though all three are populated islands. But Manhattan and Staten Island are also administrative divisions, while Roosevelt Island is not, and is much smaller than the other two. In general, I think the rule is to use "in" when referring to administrative divisions and "on" when referring to non-administrative divisions, but this has lots of exceptions. epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No rule. This is like the use of the locative when it comes to islands in Latin. It's entirely arbitrary and highly dependent on local usage. Ifly6 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While the suggestion for consistency is initially attractive, the proposal does not appear include any option that would be sufficiently accurate as a general purpose rule. It would be nice if we could come up with an accurate rule, but I haven't put much thought into whether it is doable. Alsee (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Use whatever the commonly understood variant is for each specific island. Manhattan is a good instance - it is both an island and a borough, so "in Manhattan" refers to something being in the borough and "on Manhattan Island" or shortened → "on Manhattan", both technically correct. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no clear answer to this. However, I prefer using in by default (particularly if territory is both an island and an administrative subdivision). Perhaps on should be used only in certain cases where prevailing usage in existing sources uses "on".--DreamLinker (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It should rely on local usage. It's an interesting question tho'. In Scotland I think it's true to say that it is usually 'on' for individual islands but 'in' for a group of islands - thus "on Hirta" but "in St Kilda". However there are complications such as the use of one word for both the singular and plural e.g. "I live on Shetland (mainland)" vs "I live in Shetland (the archipelago)" or where a word for an island is also used for a political unit (per Manhattan above). I could imagine a guideline for Scottish islands working but if usage is different eslewhere then that is what we should go with. Ben   Mac  Dui  09:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE: I was not aware of the discussion on this page when I raised essentially the same point at WT:MOS.  There is further discussion there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY OPPOSE: making any absolute rule, per wp:COMMON SENSE (is that still a thing?) and per above.  Time-waster.   GenQuest  "Talk to Me" 20:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose creating any rule beyond internal consistency within a single article. Both are understandable constructions.  There are WAY too many factors at play, and WAY to many differences, and neither formulation leads to misunderstanding in any dialect of English.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No rule. There's no consistency in the actual usage of English, so imposing one here would create far more conflict than resolve it. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

FAR for Caroline Island
I have nominated Caroline Island for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Amchitka
I have nominated Amchitka for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Mainland Australia
Hi there, I was wondering if anyone would be able to have a look at the Mainland Australia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainland_Australia) stub in a few weeks time. Would be appreciated.Watermelon42 (talk) 02:44, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussing adding "needs infobox" and "needs attention" to Wikiprojet Template
To help coordinate with adding infoboxes and getting an overview of the pages missing an infobox I'm looking for community feedback before implementing one or both of these parameters. Discussed further on: Proposing adding needs attention and needs infobox parameters to the Islands template Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Caroline Island
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Caroline Island/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped save this featured article from demotion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Pointiness" of islands
In List of islands by highest point there is a column representing "pointiness", with units relating to the height divided by the area. (To make something approximating a gradient, the power of the height has to be double the power of the area.) This seems well-intentioned, but the actual units have changed several times, and there is no evidence this is any sort of notable measure - and it is surely a lot less notable than many other possibilities such as population density. Please make comments on the Talk page. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Saba
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Saba that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

GAR for Isles of Scilly
Isles of Scilly has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research
Please see Village pump (policy). Rschen7754 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC, now at Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Fate of Stromboli link
There is a split proposal ongoing at Talk:Stromboli to split Mount Stromboli off from the article about the island which is currently at Stromboli. The split proposal doesn't clearly say what will remain at that location, whether it will be Stromboli (disambiguation), Stromboli (island), or possibly Stromboli (food). Input would be appreciated in that split proposal and especially the subsection Talk:Stromboli. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability
We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Isle of Portland
User:Buidhe has nominated Isle of Portland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Vulcano
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vulcano that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Shapinsay
I have nominated Shapinsay for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Whiddy Island disaster
Whiddy Island disaster has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)